PDaDdy

LT is done and he is done for a reason. He has had too many injuries and is WAY past his prime. Where would he fit in our rotation? Fred, Marshawn, LT....we don't have enough touches to go around for the guys we do have. It is only logical to assume it's another one of these guys that think player XYZ is a thug or whatever veiled "off color" name you want to use. It's typical. Lynch without question has definitely had some maturity issues but he is a good RB who was in the probowl as an alternate 2 years ago. He had the highest yards per carry of all probowl RBs and was the guy called in when the AFC needed a critical 4th down conversion. We are never going to get better if we keep getting rid of talent because our poor little feelings got hurt because these players aren't perfect gentlemen or actually demand to be paid what they are worth. I agree he is a risk due to his off field problems and that Fred is a better cut back runner and slightly better receiver. Is this because Fred Jackson is 29 and Lynch is 23? Something to think about people. Freddy better be more mature and more polished as a RB as he is more than 5 years Lynch's senior. That is 2/3s of a lifetime in RB years. That being said if we could actually find this guy a o-line that could open a freakin' hole in the running game he is indeed a BEAST! Let's worry about fixing our actual holes instead of creating new ones shall we?

Yes I do believe he played for years before that and I believe that he had a shoulder problem the previous year. Yes we did start drafting to improve the line last year but we are far from done and we created as many problems as we fixed. We traded our probowl LT and got rid of pretty decent RT when we found out that the lifetime big ugly road grader, not surprisingly, didn't have nimble enough feet or the athleticism to play LT. We then did the smart thing and didn't address either of those positions in FA or the draft.

Says it all.

First of all if we draft the right guys we can easily go a long way to fixing our o-line. That is partially due to the fact that it is currently SO bad that almost any help would be a vast improvement. LOL. On Bradford, I would have to strongly disagree. Haven't we learned anything from the past and his two shoulder issues?

He'll probably get planted on his shoulder...not that shoulder injuries are a recurring theme with this guy. LOL. I hate to even put it like that but it is what it is. I don't mean to knock Bradford. He could be damn good. Problem is we can't protect him, or anyone for that matter, right now. I'm not talking the luxury of a great protection and 3+ seconds to make up your mind. I am talking about basic safety for his well being. That kid could end up a vegetable with the line we currently have.

Thanks for doing the research and getting the details. I knew that was the answer but didn't have the specifics. O-line pieces in place at the same time or before the QB????....hrm...sounds like a recipe for success.

I was a bit confused by this. Which philosophy do you support? If you really think that 40% or more of first round pick QBs sit their first year I need to see the stats. Even if you are within 20%, what is REALLY of relevance is how many QBs drafted in the top 10 picks sit. I have kept asking this question over and over and over and noone can provide an answer. In the last number of years what top 10 QB other than Phillip Rivers has not started by sometime in his rookie year? You can't use the example of late first round QBs to predict what will happen with early first round pick QBs. Those slots are night and freaking day. We are probably talking several million a year between say #9 and #32. Money, on the high pick, dictates that they play. End of story. If you don't feel that way please disregard and anyone who DOES feel that way should take heed! LOL

Try giving writing comprehension a shot. If you don't remember what you typed an hour ago you need to grow something more than a brain stem or cut back on your meds!!!!! If you were just speaking about hypothetically taking the #3 DT in a ficticious strong Dline class vs the #1 LT in a fictitious weak oline class ....WHO CARES!!!!!! Thanks for your brilliant insight Sherlock. Perhaps instead of copping attitude you should get a clue how to express yourself in the written word so that people get your point. Or, how about make a point that is worth making?

LOL....nice. The other pipe dream is to get a QB and "let him sit for a year or 2"....ROFLOL. Everyone cleverly ignores the fact that that doesn't happen in today's NFL with top 10 QB picks anymore.

Do your home work. Just because you don't consider o-line important don't say this is a weak class. IT IS NOT! As a side note some project that potentially 4 LTs will go in the first 10 picks and that up to half of the first round picks in general will be on the offensive or defensive lines.

This needed SERIOUS fixing. There are PLENTY more QBs available who are restricted but could be had cheap especially if their teams go in another direction. This doesn't even include straight up trades for guys like Mike Vick. Kyle Orton, Denver Broncos (27) – Restricted FA (UFA-CBA) Jason Campbell, Washington Redskins (28) – Restricted FA (UFA-CBA) Matt Moore, Carolina Panthers (26) – Restricted FA Tarvaris Jackson, Minnesota Vikings (27) – Restricted FA (UFA-CBA) Kellen Clemens, New York Jets (27) – Restricted FA (UFA-CBA) Troy Smith, Baltimore Ravens (26) – Restricted FA

Pipe dream buddy. If we draft a QB at #9 ....he starts sometime this year. Money plays!!!

Nope. Almost the same time actually. Jim Kelly went to the USFL. By the time he played his first game for the Bills we had the basic components of that monster line that took us to the superbowl I believe.

I have been waiting a LONG time to see something like this my friend. A LONG time.

Said this before show me the last rookie QB drafted in the top 9 spots, not counting Phillip Rivers, who has sat a year!!!!!! Beuhler?....Beuhler? If we get a QB at 9 he will play and he WILL get killed.

I agree, obviously, with the get the o-line in place first. The problem with the get the SUPPOSED franchise QB first crowd is that they all pretty much 100% say let the guy sit on the bench while we put together the line later. To which I always reply THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN TODAY'S NFL ANYMORE. Rookie QBs drafted that high WILL PLAY!!!!! Behind out current terrible line THEY WILL GET KILLED AND RUINED JUST LIKE THE LAST ONES!!!

Other than Phillip Rivers name the last QB that was drafted in the top 9 spots that sat for a year or 2? In todays NFL if you make that kind of money YOU PLAY! Period. One rule that is pretty much law is that "money" plays!!! We don't want to turn qa promising prospect QB into a Joey Harrington or David Carr!

No self respecting OL guy would say this!!! LOL. I love pre-combine speculation as much or more than the next guy but where we go in free agency and post combine evaluation will really be the final say on what we do. IMHO there is absolutely 100% no freakin way we can go into next season without a new LT, NT and RT. THESE GUYS ARE NOT ON THE ROSTER TODAY!!!! Any of those positions that we don't have addressed by the draft we need to get in the draft and make them our #1, #2 and #3 picks respectively. I would REALLY hate it but if worse came to worse with an improved line we could let our current QBs duke it out for the starting job. Gailey is supposed to be an offensive genius and has gotten more with less at the QB spot in the past.

Sadly I might have to agree with you that our RT prospects are even worse. Isn't it sad and telling that some are saying the best tackle prospects out there are guys we got rid of??? When will this front office and the rest of our fans realize how important the offensive line is? Good or probowl talent needs to be kept and compensated instead of scraping the bargain bin and trotting out any old guy off the street who goes is 6'4" 300+.

Otherwise, I think everyone understood your position after your first 100 redundant posts on this topic. I believe what I said was accurate. Do you disagree? It's an incredibly obvious statement I know but it is to try to get people to get away from single play "x" was the reason why we lost the game. There are MANY single plays throughout the game that lost it for you. On offense. On defense. On special teams. It is a very simple statement that collectively tries to get that point across. The TEAM didn't do enough to prevent the other team from scoring and score enough themselves. Your right though, I did go to incredible length to try to explain my point but still somehow some people still don't get it.

Exactly. It was so obvious to me that Trent wasn't the guy. There are any number of guys we could have brought in that would have taken Edwards job perhaps even faster than Fitz. Doesn't mean they are great QBs or the way we should go....it just means that Edwards was THAT ineffective.

You're right Baltimore did make the play offs this year. If I said they didn't, my bad I screwed that one up. As was discussed Baltimore tried to put more on Flacco's shoulders and pass more. I have brought this up in the past but it doesn't sinkn in to people. If you drop back to pass more often you expose your QB to more hurries, hits and sacks. How good does Baltimore's line look with that rushing attack that dominates? Starting to see the theme. Great line, good rushing attack good defense can all be a young QBs best friends You mean with Harrington after he was destroyed and had his career and confidence ruined in Detroit? You mean that Joey Harrington? Just want to make sure we are talking about the same guy.

The defense not allowing the opposing offense to get 300 yds per game and score 30+ could also have to do with a more efficient offense. It's a yin and yang unfortunately and one side of the ball helps the other. Ball security, fewer drive killing sacks, fewer costly turn overs. I am interested where you got your stats. It seems funny to me that Rogers can throw for almost the exact same number of TDs and yards reduces his turnovers by more than 50%, increases his completion percentage, his sack number drops dramatically yet his QB rating is actually lower. SOUNDS FISHY TO ME!!!! Huge impact are your words not mine. Sorry pal but you can't put words in my mouth. Stop assuming more to what I have said. Take it at face value, don't hurt yourself trying to infer something I didn't intend and then railing against it like I said it. That's in your head. Nope wrong again. I said an effect. "Huge effect" are your words. Again I have not stated this. Please stop making things up that I have not said and then trying to prove them wrong. You just don't read what people write do you? You infer exaclty what you want and then try to shoot down some imaginary point that nobody made. What I said is that there are some QBs who are the exception that perform well numbers wise DESPITE all of the sacks they and their line give up. Roethlisberger because he is a freak and almost can't be tackled and Rogers is apparently just that tough to hang in there and be that good. See how that says NOTHING about sacks not being an indicator of a good or bad line? For the record so you can't get confused again, yes, generally high sacks indicate poor pass protection. There are many other factors but certainly generally that is the case. SOOOO the fact that when they decided to run in the superbowl and averaged over 5+ yards a carry against a good Greg Williams defense was just a fluke? You said "they couldn't run when they tried.". Well in the super bowl they made up their mind and tried! How much more simple could that be? I seriously and honestly don't get what it is you are missing there. And for the record the only reason I have harped on the superbowl is because DarthICE started about 6 thread in the last 48 hours all attacking the same point from different angles about why we need a QB first. I could give a **** about the superbowl because it is too small of a sample size. Most good teams with good records that have good QBs have a good line in front of them. Most teams that have good records have good lines. See the common thread? A good line. Of course there are always a handful of exceptions but this doesn't disprove the rule. You should know this. Arguing that o-line isn't VERY important is just plain dumb. For the record as you will see I have never made the opposite argument. I have never said that a QB good isn't very important. That would also be dumb as hell. Yes better. As in won the game for one...and his astounding numbers yes COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER!!! If you take your dragster that needs a good tuneup to the track and set the track record.....YOU COULD HAVE DONE EVEN BETTER IF THE CAR WAS TUNED UP! Hopefully you understand that or I am REALLY REALLY wasting my time with this back and forth. Yes it does show as I said that Aaron Rogers is an exception not the standard. He is a QB that is able to succeed even with a ****ty line in front of him....So what does this mean for us? Draft Aaron Rogers for me and I will glady chose a QB over making the line better and getting a solid LT to help achieve that goal. Makes sense to me. Tom Brady from the 2008 superbowl agrees. QB pressures, sacks and hits don't negatively impact a QBs performance? ROFLOL. If that is indeed what you are trying to say and that didn't play some factor in Rogers blowing his load early and too far to Jennings, what a joke! Didn't you just insinuate that that was the case. I guess I really am wasting my time trying to educate and provide logical supporting arguments for my points. What it is is confidence in my philosophy. I am willing to put myself out there and make a claim that I am willing to live or die by. All you do is try to show me examples of exemplary veteran QBs that have been able to succeed without great lines of LTs and use that as some ridiculous justification of getting A FREAKIN ROOKIE QB who will be able to do the same. That is absurd. Do you expect us to buy that leap of logic? That is insulting that you think others are so dumb as to by that line of reasoning. What I attempted to do was give people in your camp the opportunity to say "I stand by my desire to get a QB and Bradford, Claussen, XYZ will be a star in this league and be the type of QB that can succeed with a poor line in front of him as a rookie." BUT, of course you can't say that so your academic argument of QB first is completely worthless because you can't identify a rookie QB candidate with that kind of skill. So don't bother me with that BS until you can do so. Open up your eyes. I am pretty darn sure it was this thread but , Big Ben of about 2005 when he won his first a super bowl had a phenomenal line, running game, pass protection AND SOUL CRUSHING DEFENSE. Didn't the kid throw about 20 passes total to win a super bowl? Hello....Trent Dilfer in Baltimore with 2000yrd rusher Jamal Lewis. Matt Ryan last year with great protection and the #2 rushing game in the league. Joe Flacco last year as I already stated. Defense was also a big part there too. Mark Sanchez this year with the number one rushing team in the league and good protection that got a rookie QB who made plenty of mistakes to the AFC championship game. Chew on those for a while. I'm sure you can find others if you take the time to see what the norm is instead of trying to find exceptions to it. ROFLOL. right....He was in there blocking for the #2 rushing attack in 2008. Suuuuure he made the line better. Again the theme is good offensive line = pass protection and ability to run the ball when they so chose. Are you talking 2008 or 2009 season. 2009 season had a turf toe Matt Ryan and a busted up amazing RB in Micheal Turner. As went their line and running game so went their season. Edwards vs Fitzpatrick is a good example to discuss. Do you think we took fewer sacks because Ryan Fitzpatrick is a superstar QB who makes the line better .....or because Trent Edwards gobbles rooster-a-doodle-do and makes the line that much worse? I know the answer. Hopefully you do to.

Especially considering the last 2 or 3 years I think that severa rookie LTs and some RTs have played great. That doesn't even include a bunch more that are just starters and doing just fine. Woods and Levitre didn't play great but they were serviceable average players that didn't suck their first year. If you haven't heard, there is a trend in the NFL where high first round rookie QBs play their first year. Matter of fact other than Philip Rivers I can't think of a top 10 pick QB who hasn't started by sometime in their first year in the last several years. Even teams with better pieces in place and fewer holes can't afford to get a high pick QB and keep him on the bench for 2 or 3 years while they rebuild the o-line and give it time to gel. What makes you think we are so good that we can afford the luxury of getting some risky QB prospect and squirrel away that nut on the bench for a couple years? The reality in today's NFL is that guy is going to play his first year. Do you want to expose a rookie QB candidate to the kind of pressures, hits and sacks he would have to suffer through in Buffalo with our ****ty line?

uhhhhh.....ME!!!!!!!!!!!!.....I put my personal feelings aside about the contract situation and hold out and knew that screwing up the Peters things was going to create the domino effect of suck that we had last year on the line.